MINATI DIXIT Vs. AJAYA KUMAR DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 264 of 1999 for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she married the opposite party on 25-5-1996 according to Hindu rites and custom and led a conjugal life. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party and his family members not being satisfied with the dowry articles received at the time of marriage, demanded cash of Rs. 40,000.00 for purchasing a motor cycle and also started illtreating her due to non-fulfilment of the demand. It is also the case of the petitioner that the opposite party is having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (brother's wife) and neglected her. Due to the illtreatment and torture, the petitioner had to leave the house and approached the village committee and also lodged an F. I. R. in the local police station alleging commission of offence under S. 498-A of the Penal Code read with S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the local police did not take any action, another F. I. R. was lodged in the Mahila Police Station, Cuttack. Her further case is that the opposite party earns Rs. 4,500.00 from stationery-cum-betel shop and also Rs. 3,000.00 from the landed property.

(3.) The opposite party in his show cause denied the allegations made against him and the case of the opposite party is that the petitioner prior to her marriage was staying in the house of her brother-in-law Tankadhar Panda and after marriage also she continued to visit the house of said Tankadhar Panda in spite of the objection of the opposite party. It is also alleged by the opposite party that he was assaulted by the said Tankadhar Panda on many occasions in presence of the petitioner and at his instance she started a case against him. So far as income is concerned, the specific case of the opposite party is that he has no shop or house and he worked as a daily labourer and he has no income. The further case of the opposite party is that she left the matrimonial home on her own-will and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance.